Obama remains only President to record trillion-dollar deficits!

[Gimmesometruth]

LOL, trotting out all the bull**** liberal tropes, are we? Explain why the deficit dropped to $163 billion under Bush if he was running up all that debt. Of course, when the Dems took control of Congress in 2007, all bets were off and the deficits exploded.

Yeah, deficits exploded...post 2007...because.....Dems regained the House. Thanks for the macro correlation there, Mr. "There will not be a recession in 2008".

 

[Bullseye]

:lol:

Yes, because economic effects of a recession have always been known to start and stop instantaneously.

What a ridiculous comment.
Yes, really. The CBO predicted above $1t deficit and most people who paid attention used that number. But because that number was only slightly off, you created a thread specifically to troll those who believe differently than you, while missing the entire point of the $1t number in the first place, a number we are most definitely going to hit in FY20, three years before the CBO predicted we would hit it prior to the Trump administration.

Nonsense, I was presenting a counter argument to the mass of people who claimed Trump's plan would create a $1.5 trillion deficit.

The entire point of this thread was to needle those who don't agree with you politically, and in order to do that, you had to dishonestly parse the intent behind what the others have said

So, yes, that is exactly what you are doing.

"Entire point"? No, but I do enjoy watching those who've pontificating since before the election see how wrong they were. And, yes, I tend to title my threads with provocatively or to draw attention to the content.

That's just so stupid it makes my brain hurt to think anyone could say anything so stupid.

At least it's a small pain

How does tax cuts increase tax revenues? It doesn't. A better economy definitely increases tax revenues, but there is no hard evidence the Trump tax cuts significantly altered the economic trend which started long before him.

There's plenty of evidence - increased tax revenue, for instance. How does revenue INCREASE when people and business are paying lower rates? Only one way: increased economic activity.

It's like you are doing everything you can to say the stupidest things possible.

I'd say you've captured that flag.

The only way you can do that is to make old people die faster. Because Social Security and Medicare are the biggest area of growth in outlays. I don't see that happening.

I didn't say it was going to be easy.

What we SHOULD be doing is taxing more in a time of economic prosperity.

What you REALLY been is raise more revenue. "Taxing more" is the classic way to discourage economic activity. Did taxing cigarettes more increase smoking or reduce it?

The government should be working down the deficit, so when the next economic downturn occurs (because it will), the government will have more leverage to confront and minimize the damage. But due to the loss of revenues from the Trump tax cuts (and other factors as well, but we're mostly talking tax cuts in this post), our ability to confront the next downturn will be hampered.

LOL. Your dismal understanding of economics is amazing. [/quote]There has been no loss of revenue - this year's total is up 4% over last year. Corporate tax revenue was up 12% Why do you find those simple facts so perplexing?

 

[Moderate Right]

The downs can last a decade or more. To deny that is ridiculous.



Lost Decade (Japan) - Wikipedia

Obama got handed a terrible economy and he did a good job. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

I never denied anything. I said the economy has ups and downs. Always has, always will.

 

[Bullseye]

I don't have an excuse other than we were in a slow recovery. Again, nothing of the sort is going on now, so why is Trump running such large deficits?

You're correct on that; Obama's recovery was the slowest of any since WW II.

 

[Bullseye]

The CBO link says the deficit is billions, not trillions...

The federal budget deficit was $984 billion in fiscal year 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

For this year, and whenever the deficit is UNDER A TRILLION, it is reported in billions. For fiscal year 2019 the deficit could have been reported as $.984 trillion.

 

[Vern]

Democrats nation-wide on suicide watch! After two years of ranting about Trump's tax cuts causing a trillion dollar deficit, CBO says it didn't happen. It also says tax revenues went up 4% and corporate tax revenues went up 12%.


Extra credit: a little background on tax revenues for the past few fiscal years.

If you have friends who are Democrats (yeah, it COULD happen) please keep an eye on them. :lamo

Lets forget for just a second that Bush owns the 1.4 trillion dollar Budget Deficit for 2009. Really? you’re happy that even though Trump is ballooning the deficit in a growing economy when he promised the opposite, it’s a victory because its not over some arbitrary level? shouldn’t you be more concerned that every conservative is a flaming hypocrite and every republican is a flaming lying hypocrite concering deficits. Now lets deal with the falsehood in the title. Here the CBO Outlook that shows Bush’s last budget deficit revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over.

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019 | Congressional Budget Office

So not only does Bush completely own the 1.4 trillion deficit in 2009, he’s responsible for the massive trillion dollar Bush deficits that followed. They were bush’s policies that destroyed the economy.

 

[Glitch]

Democrats nation-wide on suicide watch! After two years of ranting about Trump's tax cuts causing a trillion dollar deficit, CBO says it didn't happen. It also says tax revenues went up 4% and corporate tax revenues went up 12%.


Extra credit: a little background on tax revenues for the past few fiscal years.

If you have friends who are Democrats (yeah, it COULD happen) please keep an eye on them. :lamo

You need to get an education in basic civics. Presidents have nothing to do with budgets, deficits, or surpluses, particularly when Congress passes the budget with a veto-proof majority. There was no "Trump tax cut" or "Trump deficit" or "Trump" anything. These are acts of Congress, not the President. Trump has had no opportunity to have any influence on the budget since he has taken office. Not a single budget he has proposed was ever passed by Congress.

So the next time you want to discuss the budget, deficits, and/or surpluses, leave the President out of it because they have nothing to do with any of that.

 

[Glitch]

You forgot to mention obama was handed by a republican president a crashing economy and turned it around. Trump is only adding to the deficit in a good economy.

Exactly how did he go about doing that? It is truly amazing what some people will believe. Do you also believe that Presidents can leap tall buildings in a single bound? What other fantasies do you have about Presidents and their imaginary super-powers?

Anyone who blames a President (any President) for the state of the economy (good or bad) is demonstrating their illiteracy with basic civics. You will know by their claim that they have no clue how their own government functions. Which is truly pathetic.

 

[Slyfox696]

Nonsense, I was presenting a counter argument to the mass of people who claimed Trump's plan would create a $1.5 trillion deficit.

Oh? Here's your first post:

After two years of ranting about Trump's tax cuts causing a trillion dollar deficit, CBO says it didn't happen.

Why would you post a lie about something so easily proven a lie?

There's plenty of evidence - increased tax revenue, for instance. How does revenue INCREASE when people and business are paying lower rates? Only one way: increased economic activity.

But you're basing your argument on a trend that had already begun. That's stupid.

The economy was already improving, was already seeing increasingly lower unemployment and higher wages. That's how revenues go up. But there's no hard evidence to suggest the Trump tax cuts changed the trajectory of the economy in any meaningful way, which means your comment that cutting taxes increases revenues is completely stupid.

I'd say you've captured that flag.

You're the one claiming not taking in as much money is increasing the money. Only you are saying something that stupid, not me.

I didn't say it was going to be easy.

It's not happening. So you have to increase your revenues and cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans/businesses is not going to do it.

It's like you have completely failed both logic and economics 101.

What you REALLY been is raise more revenue.

No, what I mean is we need to be increasing our taxes.

With all due respect, given how stupid the things you've posted have been, please do not try and tell me what I mean.

"Taxing more" is the classic way to discourage economic activity.

That's just silly. No one is arguing for oppressive taxes.

Seriously, do you not have a quota on the number of stupid things you allow yourself to post?

Did taxing cigarettes more increase smoking or reduce it?

We're not trying to shape behavior, we're trying to decrease the federal deficit during a time of economic prosperity. The Trump administration has actively worked to do the exact opposite.

There has been no loss of revenue - this year's total is up 4% over last year.

Yeah, again you demonstrate a lack of understanding economics 101.

Revenues being up doesn't mean we didn't lose revenues. That's just stupid. If I charge $20 last year for a brand new car and this year I charge $30 for a brand new car, my revenues are going up. Meanwhile, Honda is charging $25,000 for that brand new car and with the money I spend on producing that car, I have shorted myself over $24,000 worth of revenue and I am now operating at a deficit.

Do you get it now? Because the medium of the debate prevents me from saying it slower for you.

So not only does Bush completely own the 1.4 trillion deficit in 2009

Bush owns $1.2t of it. The other roughly $200b came after Obama's inauguration, much of it related to the stimulus package.

 

[Airyaman]

You're correct on that; Obama's recovery was the slowest of any since WW II.

So no comment as to why Trump is running such high deficits?

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Exactly how did he go about doing that? It is truly amazing what some people will believe. Do you also believe that Presidents can leap tall buildings in a single bound? What other fantasies do you have about Presidents and their imaginary super-powers?

Anyone who blames a President (any President) for the state of the economy (good or bad) is demonstrating their illiteracy with basic civics. You will know by their claim that they have no clue how their own government functions. Which is truly pathetic.

A president can make decisions that benefit or adversely affect an economy.

Obama's decisions were: supporting TARP, the Stimulus, tax cuts for the middle class and U.S. autoworker bailout.

Trump could crash the economy by ramping up the trade war. Trump gambled that slashing corporate taxes would have a significant effect on wages but that hasn't happened. It has had a significant effect on the deficit.

 

[Moot]

You do understand what estimate means right? These numbers mean that if the estimate is of by 1.6%, a trillion dollar deficit will have occurred.

My bad, I thought he said "trillions".

 

[Bullseye]

So no comment as to why Trump is running such high deficits?

I've made many comments on that subject. When revenues go up and deficits still increase the only reason is because of spending. Read the CBO report for details

 

[Bullseye]

Oh? Here's your first post:

Why would you post a lie about something so easily proven a lie?

But you're basing your argument on a trend that had already begun. That's stupid.

The economy was already improving, was already seeing increasingly lower unemployment and higher wages. That's how revenues go up. But there's no hard evidence to suggest the Trump tax cuts changed the trajectory of the economy in any meaningful way, which means your comment that cutting taxes increases revenues is completely stupid.

You're the one claiming not taking in as much money is increasing the money. Only you are saying something that stupid, not me.

It's not happening. So you have to increase your revenues and cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans/businesses is not going to do it.

It's like you have completely failed both logic and economics 101.

No, what I mean is we need to be increasing our taxes.

With all due respect, given how stupid the things you've posted have been, please do not try and tell me what I mean.

That's just silly. No one is arguing for oppressive taxes.

Seriously, do you not have a quota on the number of stupid things you allow yourself to post?

We're not trying to shape behavior, we're trying to decrease the federal deficit during a time of economic prosperity. The Trump administration has actively worked to do the exact opposite.

Yeah, again you demonstrate a lack of understanding economics 101.

Revenues being up doesn't mean we didn't lose revenues. That's just stupid. If I charge $20 last year for a brand new car and this year I charge $30 for a brand new car, my revenues are going up. Meanwhile, Honda is charging $25,000 for that brand new car and with the money I spend on producing that car, I have shorted myself over $24,000 worth of revenue and I am now operating at a deficit.

Do you get it now? Because the medium of the debate prevents me from saying it slower for you.
Bush owns $1.2t of it. The other roughly $200b came after Obama's inauguration, much of it related to the stimulus package.

Ok, I'm tired of your nonsense and ill-manner.

 

[Moot]

You do understand what estimate means right? These numbers mean that if the estimate is of by 1.6%, a trillion dollar deficit will have occurred.

Yeah, I understand...but I don't think the OP does....

For this year, and whenever the deficit is UNDER A TRILLION, it is reported in billions. For fiscal year 2019 the deficit could have been reported as $.984 trillion.

 

[Bullseye]

You need to get an education in basic civics. Presidents have nothing to do with budgets, deficits, or surpluses, particularly when Congress passes the budget with a veto-proof majority. There was no "Trump tax cut" or "Trump deficit" or "Trump" anything. These are acts of Congress, not the President. Trump has had no opportunity to have any influence on the budget since he has taken office. Not a single budget he has proposed was ever passed by Congress.

So the next time you want to discuss the budget, deficits, and/or surpluses, leave the President out of it because they have nothing to do with any of that.

You need to get that education yourself; particularly in the federal budget process. And also learn how the President works with congress on tax and budget issues.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

You need to get that education yourself; particularly in the federal budget process. And also learn how the President works with congress on tax and budget issues.

The standards you apply seems to vary depending on whether or not you like who is in office.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Ok, I'm tired of your nonsense and ill-manner.

^^^^^

 

[bongsaway]

Hey, the recession and the massive deficits were under Obama's watch.

Maybe you should look into that a bit further. Before bush left office we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. Blaming obama is nice but not accurate.

 

[bongsaway]

And you forgot to mention it was the worst economic recovery on record. He did a lousy job.

You guys. Obama did a lousy job and on january 21st the day after trump was sworn in the economy was magically wonderful again.

Not bush did a lousy job, it was obama taking too long to fix the mess left by bush.

You guys.

 

[mrjurrs]

You're correct on that; Obama's recovery was the slowest of any since WW II.

You're right, it was the slowest recovery. And it has created the longest period of economic expansion in our nation's history. No you can go ahead and claim djt is responsible for the economic growth, and explain why he added $1.2 trillion in stimulus to a growing economy.

 

[Airyaman]

I've made many comments on that subject. When revenues go up and deficits still increase the only reason is because of spending. Read the CBO report for details

Why so much spending?

 

[bongsaway]

Exactly how did he go about doing that? It is truly amazing what some people will believe. Do you also believe that Presidents can leap tall buildings in a single bound? What other fantasies do you have about Presidents and their imaginary super-powers?

Anyone who blames a President (any President) for the state of the economy (good or bad) is demonstrating their illiteracy with basic civics. You will know by their claim that they have no clue how their own government functions. Which is truly pathetic.

Your answer is truly pathetic. I know you want to blame congress since they control the purse strings but if you look back people didn't dare go against bush and his war for fear of being called a traitor to america, not after nine eleven. The bush/cheney/rumsfeld trio of evil pushed america into that war and bush BORROWED and spent, he didn't have the balls to tax and spend and that left america in a deep hole that obama dug us out of.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Economies go up and down. If GWB had been in office 4-8 more years the very same thing would have happened as under Obama.

I doubt that, W was in favor of FISCAL assistance (to the banks) and the GOP congress went along. After the GOP regained the House, there was no fiscal real action to improve the economy.

 

[Bullseye]

Why so much spending?

Because it's not the politician's money.